(---) FitzEustace, father of John de Lacy?
Cristopher Nash
I notice that in several recent postings under a variety of headers John de
Lacy, Constable of Chester (d. ca. 1190) has with confidence been called
son of Robert FitzEustace.
This is conventionally an issue fraught with confusion. One poster,
probably quite wisely, has referred instead to this father (as husband of
"Albreda Lisoiers") as "Richard (Robert) FitzEustace"
(<PRhle...@aol.com>, 11 June 98). There's a problem here.
The trouble springs from a tendency for conflict to arise between accounts
of descent from the FitzEustace line given by researchers interested in the
Lacy family and those interested in the FitzRobert (Wark[worth)]/Clavering)
family. Only readers happening to be so unlucky as to have an interest in
both are likely to find it a problem. On balance, if Lacy, then 'Robert'
inclines to be chosen; if Wark(worth)/Clavering, then 'Richard'. Sadly
it's not even quite so simple as that. Briefly, among the traditional
readings, for John de Lacy's father with Aubrey de Lisours --
These choose 'Richard': Burke's Ext.& Dorm. Peerage ["Clavering"];
Turton (95); Hodgson, Northumberland County History; Clay, _Early
Yorkshire Charters_, III, chart 199; DNB ["Roger de Lacy" and
"Eustace FitzJohn"]; and CP XII, pt 2 [1959, "Vescy", 274, note d].
These choose 'Robert': CP VII (1959, "Lincoln", chart p 677);
Wightman,
_The Lacy Family in England and Normandy 1066-1194_; Le
Patourel and
others deferring to Wightman.
JH Round says the father of John de Lacy remains undetermined (e.g.in
"Who was Alice de Vere", Trans Essex Arch Soc n.s. vol 3).
Wightman, as the most recent among these and often unproblematically
accepted by subsequent historians, seems in principle (in spite of the
weight of previous readings) a man to stick with. Unfortunately, Wightman
(showing no awareness of Round on the subject) skirts the issue altogether
by never considering the argument for - or indeed mentioning - the name
Richard FitzEustace. And more unfortunately, he appears to have inherited
"Robert" from the rough chart in CP VII "Lincoln", p 677, which he has
obviously copied line-for-line and without awareness of its supercession by
"Richard", 30 years later, in CP XII, pt 2.
Unfortunately, the business of given names here isn't as trivial as we
might like. Those familiar with the similar problem of who is the father
of Roger FitzRichard (antecedent of the Wark(worth)/Clavering line) -- is
it Richard FitzEustace? -- will know how identities in this generation have
been utterly confounded by the erroneous attribution of names. A mistake
that even the much-relied-on scholar Clay makes in _Early Yorkshire
Charters_, where he calls the same man Roger FitzRichard and Roger
FitzRoger. Obviously an easy resolution of the father-of-John-de-Lacy
puzzle might seem within reach if we adopted the formula offered by
<PRhle...@aol.com>, viz. "Richard (Robert) FitzEustace", with the
presumption that Richard and Robert are the same man. But naturally this
conflation of names/identities can be only as good as the document it's
found written on.
I hope someone here may have found an argument explicitly confronting the
Robert/Richard FitzEustace choices. Failing that, the husband of Aubrey de
Lisours and father of John de Lacy, Constable of Chester, must remain quite
simply a (----) FitzEustace, son of Eustace FitzJohn. Contrary to
historians' blithe assumption, Wightman cannot be taken as a fresh source
of any special value on this particular Lacy sequence, and any assignment
of either Robert or Richard FitzEustace as father of John de Lacy, while
the choice we hit on may be correct, must be made independent of Wightman,
Clay, Complete Peerage, Burke, Turton et al. (And I hope friends here will
forgive me if once again I ask if we can please refrain from citing ES
unless it gives a _source_ excluding -- and hopefully more reliable than -
the ones we already have?)
Sorry for bringing up this mess!
Cris
Reedpcgen
Wightman is ignorant of a number of connections concerning this family, so I
don't necessarily trust him.
The question is, what is the father of John called in almost contemporary
charters, such as those involving the Lisours, and those where John confirms
the gifts of his ancestors? Is there actually documentary evidence that John's
father was ever called Robert? If not, I see no reason to interject the name
Robert into this fray. The name Richard did occur in this family. Robert did
not. I think the problem is that no document made during his lifetime calls him
Richard, as he may have predeceased his father, Eustace Fitz John, and
definitely predeceased his step-father, Robert FitzCount, who succeeded as
constable in right of his wife (Agnes FitzNeel/Nigel). Richard was dead by
1163. John was constable by 1166 according to the Pipe Roll [PR 12 Hen. II,
51].
WILLIAM FARRER states [Honours and Knights Fees 2:201] that John the Constable
"attested a charter of Robert de Ros, as 'JOHN SON OF RICHARD SON OF EUSTACE'
during the period 1147-53" [emphasis mine], citing Chartul. of Rievaux, 22.
That might have been while Richard was still alive, and contemporary enough for
me (as long as there is no reason to believe it was spurious). So again,
unless there is SOME document which calls him Robert, I see no reason not to
call him Richard. We might refer to him, then, as 'Richard (not Robert)
FitzEustace' to help correct the error.
William de Vescy definitely stated he had a [half?] brother named Richard. See
EYC 2:407 (no. 1110), "for the health of the soul of Richard and Geoffrey his
brothers, and for the welfare of Agnes, his father's wife...." [William's
mother was Beatrice.] And there is no question that Eustace FitzJohn was John
the Constable's grandfather, as John calls "Eustachii filii Johannis avi mei et
uxoris illius Agnetis, avie mee". Lewis C. Lloyd and Doris Stenton also state
that John's father was Richard FitzEustace [Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of
Seals, nos. 515n, 517, 519.]
There are accounts in Dugdale's Mon. Angl., aside from Early Yorkshire
Charters, and though Clay edited parts, it was William Farrer who edited the
early volumes. I have just copied quite a bit of material on these antecessors
of the second Lacy line, the family of FitzNeel/FitzNigel, and the Constables
of Flamborough, and will make one or two long posts sometime this weekened
after I have time to get it all together.
pcr
P. S. Didn't Round, in the article you cited (Trans. Essex Arch. Soc., NS
3:248) satisfactorily show that Richard FitzEustace was definitely NOT father
of Roger FitzRichard of Warkworth? [I won't have access to article until
Monday.]
Reedpcgen
William de Vescy definitely stated he had a [half?] brother named Richard. See
EYC 2:407 (no. 1110), "for the health of the soul of Richard and Geoffrey his
brothers, and for the welfare of Agnes, his father's wife...." [William's
mother was Beatrice.]
I should have noted that at roughly the same time as that charter [1150-1157],
"Agnes fillia Willelmi constabularii Cestrie" [Agnes, daughter of William
FitzNeel, constable of Chester] also confirmed the charter that Eustace
FitzJohn "vir meus' [my husband] had made to the nuns of Watton [EYC 2:406-7,
no. 1109]. She included the following clause: "Hanc autem elemosinam dedi pro
salute [domini et] mea et pro anima Ricardi filii mei et Galfridi et ceterorum
amicorum meorum...." We therefore know from this that Agnes (FitzNeel)
definitely had a son named Richard. Geoffrey [Galfridi] was not called her
son, and was therefore her step-son, the brother of William de Vescy by his
mother Beatrice/Beatrix.
pcr
J.C.B.Sharp
In article <l03102800b1c1c34f2ea2@[137.205.97.11]>, Cristopher Nash (en...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) writes:
>I notice that in several recent postings under a variety of headers John de
>Lacy, Constable of Chester (d. ca. 1190) has with confidence been called
>son of Robert FitzEustace.
>
>This is conventionally an issue fraught with confusion. One poster,
>probably quite wisely, has referred instead to this father (as husband of
>"Albreda Lisoiers") as "Richard (Robert) FitzEustace"
>(<PRhle...@aol.com>, 11 June 98). There's a problem here.
There is much evidence that his name was Richard. For example John
the constable refers to his grandfather Eustace, his grandmother
Agnes, his father Richard and his uncle Geoffrey (Early Yorkshire
Charters iii 497 no.1889).
I have not seen any evidence at all for any other name.
On another point I think it is extemely doubtful that this John
ever used the name de Lacy. The error may be hard to correct as it
was first made in 1283 (Coucher Book of Whalley i 190).
J.C.B.Sharp
London
jc...@obtfc.win-uk.net